I don't doubt UConn's talking to the Big Ten. I'd expect they should. But I have to wonder that if they are pushing hard, is it because they know the AAC is a doomed venture, and that a few of the "chaser programs" that are keeping the value what it is are approaching greener pastures? The magic number for the AAC is 3.

Plus, is UConn going to pay back Rutgers for any of that departure money that UConn and some of the others are banking? I suspect Rutgers would be hesitant to support UConn without some sort of...ge$ture of good faith?

Quote:

I could be wrong, but wasn't Boston College actively not allowing Connecticut into the ACC because they were regionally "too close" (or something like that)?

I believe that's BC's official line. The unofficial one is sour grapes over being sued for leaving the Big East for the ACC.

Right, Cutter. I believe the unofficial line. Being 'close' does impact recruiting one way or the other, but close regional rivalries offer intensity which is good for recruiting and media attention whereby passion is evident. Having two New England schools among the power-five conferences doesn't look like over-saturation.

I believe UConn is basically stuck with the AAC for awhile. The old hybrid BE needed to have split well before it happened. Unfortunately, schools such as UConn and Cincy, (maybe USF, etc.) missed-out on finding a power-conference home so far. For WVU, they had to go half-way across the country to get to their new home among the elite conferences. It's too bad the major conferences did not exercise better collaboration with these decisions and show an improved level of sensitivity for those that did not get included. I would not call it 'survival of the fittest', rather the outcome of political maneuvering, pettiness, listening to consultants, competitive initiatives, shortsightedness, and arrogance.

Some schools get very lucky based on personal associations or positioning, while others equally or more deserving, face certain negative consequences, mainly much less revenue off sports. And Notre Dame, with met demands, gets valued for partial membership (ACC) over promising exclusions that would have 'giving their all'.

If a school fought hard to keep from losing more; and more is lost, then the school is to be punished further by exclusion. All conferences don't do such a fine overall job playing corporate raiders.

It's too bad the major conferences did not exercise better collaboration with these decisions and show an improved level of sensitivity for those that did not get included. I would not call it 'survival of the fittest', rather the outcome of political maneuvering, pettiness, listening to consultants, competitive initiatives, shortsightedness, and arrogance.

Some schools get very lucky based on personal associations or positioning, while others equally or more deserving, face certain negative consequences, mainly much less revenue off sports.

We're talking about the region who does it best. The history of these conferences and programs are drenched in other programs' blood, sweat, and tears. And it is still alive and well in places (BC/ACC vs. UConn, HU/CAA vs. SBU, VU/BE vs. SJU and Temple).

Temple's the program I worry most about. Those guys GOT HOSED. And there's no hope of them getting into the ACC. No chance in a million years for the Big Ten. Villanova skillfully stiff-armed them and Pitt did nothing to help them. Those are your intrastate peers, mind you. It's utterly looney how awful schools are up in these parts. It's one of the top reasons I'm glad PSU did something about it to free itself from it.

It's no wonder Notre Dame fashions itself like schools from the northeast. It acts just like one, athletically. The Big Ten doesn't need that.

Interesting how Delany describes the B1G footprint now. It's a good promotion piece, but no referencing the period exposed by the 'UNC Emails' following the acquisition of Maryland. Of course, that would detract from the article's beginning theme that the B1G's expansion was a reactionary move.

It was stated the B1G attributed their expansion with Maryland and Rutgers as a response to the SEC taking Mizzou, and the ACC adding Pitt and Notre Dame (but remaining fb independent). The ACC part has been heard before. It was not noted, though, the B1G had passed on those same schools or an all-sports or specal deaL with ND got declined. The article elaborated on the two added schools, Maryland and Rutgers, having serious financial issues. One of the best quotes: “It’s a coup,” said Tim Pernetti, the former Rutgers athletic director, who negotiated the Rutgers move to the Big Ten. “No one did better in conference realignment than Rutgers.” Well, maybe the Maryland thing was sort of a 'coup', but Rutgers is dang lucky.

Delany deserves much credit with the innovation and success of the BTN as well as other negotiations. As to expansion choices, his biggest challenge was selling selections to all the B1G Presidents. There's the Gordon Gee quote. But no missed opportunities speak.

If the B1G is going to expand again anytime soon, it looks like it would be near the time of "reset the bar" for 2017 TV negotiations. That is not a real long time away, really. Does Delany intend to deliver purely what has already been obtained for the new package; or will he expand the conference's membership to attract an offer from the network that exceeds the costs for expansion and enhance the distributions for all member schools? With the GoR's in place elsewhere, the former currently looks more realistic.

Interesting how Delany describes the B1G footprint now. It's a good promotion piece, but no referencing the period exposed by the 'UNC Emails' following the acquisition of Maryland. Of course, that would detract from the article's beginning theme that the B1G's expansion was a reactionary move.

It was stated the B1G attributed their expansion with Maryland and Rutgers as a response to the SEC taking Mizzou, and the ACC adding Pitt and Notre Dame (but remaining fb independent). The ACC part has been heard before. It was not noted, though, the B1G had passed on those same schools or an all-sports or specal deaL with ND got declined. The article elaborated on the two added schools, Maryland and Rutgers, having serious financial issues. One of the best quotes: “It’s a coup,” said Tim Pernetti, the former Rutgers athletic director, who negotiated the Rutgers move to the Big Ten. “No one did better in conference realignment than Rutgers.” Well, maybe the Maryland thing was sort of a 'coup', but Rutgers is dang lucky.

Delany deserves much credit with the innovation and success of the BTN as well as other negotiations. As to expansion choices, his biggest challenge was selling selections to all the B1G Presidents. There's the Gordon Gee quote. But no missed opportunities speak.

If the B1G is going to expand again anytime soon, it looks like it would be near the time of "reset the bar" for 2017 TV negotiations. That is not a real long time away, really. Does Delany intend to deliver purely what has already been obtained for the new package; or will he expand the conference's membership to attract an offer from the network that exceeds the costs for expansion and enhance the distributions for all member schools? With the GoR's in place elsewhere, the former currently looks more realistic.

Indeed, Delany has done great things with the Big Ten. Other commissioners have done excellent jobs as well, so it's not all about the Big Ten. But with the moves to add Rutgers and Maryland, it clearly opens the door for a future move to the south. They now will have another foot in the NY market with Penn St. and Rutgers. And with Maryland, they have the DC market. It's getting to the point where if SEC schools are off the market, that ACC schools make a ton of sense. So a future (post Maryland $$$ ruling or post GOR) expansion to 16 or 18 makes sense. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and a 4th seem like they'd be strong moves to really expand those markets.

I think UMD's current president has burned so many bridges with other ACC schools over how UMD left the conference that even if the door is open to possible B1G southeastern expansion, it leads to an empty room. Even if administrators and faculty members at UNC, Duke, or UVA like the idea of being there, as Notre Dame did at one time, you have to deal with students, alumni, boosters, and fans.

That President Loh kept his job after this, I think it only makes the possibility of future reconciliation and reunion a faint one. How Loh handled this, keeping the Board shackled by the Big Ten's smoke and mirrors, it would be unacceptable anywhere else if the move was that divisive. But, other than one or two board members, it was an easy decision. Outrage, but not enough, you know? So, UMD never returned ACC calls, legally silenced the few detractors who might have sabotaged the thing, and then counter-sued the conference. If that isn't a burnt bridge with the Carolina and Virginia schools, after all of those years, no less, I don't know what would be.

I've said from almost the start that the way to UVA and UNC, if there was one, was not through Rutgers or a jilted UMD. I still stick by it. The only schools the Big Ten could probably take if the opportunity presented itself are a couple of Big XII members and maybe a couple of SEC schools (hey, I still think Missouri's administration would bolt to the B1G before the question was even finished).

Here is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education with some emails regarding Maryland's Big Ten move.

Imagine if Notre Dame had followed what the faculty senate and deans and disregarded the alumni and fans? That one email where Kirwin says all but a very few emails have been against the move. Cripes...know where your bread is buttered, dude.

Indeed, more and more of this saga is coming out. Maryland's fear was that if it was not relatively secretive, then the deal would have got canned due to opposition forces mounting a counter action, which would also be a risk to the deciders for it. The problem with being secretive is that people who feel they deserved 'a say' in the matter, were kept in the dark, bypassed, or ignored. Loh and others supporting the decision, certainly believed the decision was good and they would be placing Maryland in a better situation.

As recently revealed a bit, the B1G did have concerns about Penn State beforehand. I got a source revelation that following the scandal period, some interests at Penn State were contemplating making profound changes (greater overhauled image) which included, perhaps, a change in conference status. Frankly, the B1G was viewed as 'piling on', rather than being constructive in helping Penn State find a more sensible outlet in navigating through the mess. After the B1G did their public posturing about the scandal, Delany and company started to realize measures may be needed to comfortably retain Penn State in the fold. The ACC was known to be willing to exploit the situation if they could. And with a number of former BE schools moving to the ACC, such could be possibly inviting to Penn State given the number of 'natural' rivalries in or heading to the ACC. But what was generally unknown, the B1G also had a fear of the SEC in this scenario. If Penn State was willing to move, the SEC potentially could deliver a better appeal than the ACC. However, given Penn State's vulnerabilities at the time, their new and timid administrators and governance overlords, a move to a conference where football was the ultimate big deal, it would have been terrible timing and certainly the wrong message. Also, the SEC was not well bridged (sort out of footprint) or contiguous to Pennsylvania which would pose other expansion issues. The ACC, at the time, looked like and was the real aggressor for the northeast. Still though, the ACC was collecting 'lesser' schools, athletically speaking, than Penn State, and the conference's core, and administrative control, remains centered in North Carolina. The ACC also was compromised in their projection of academic cleanliness, given the immense academic fraud at UNC per athletics. While Swofford worked diligently to shield UNC from a greater pounding, compare that to what was done to Clemson in 1981 after a NC. So if the thought was that the B1G had their favored schools and Penn State was not neccessarily one of them, they should not expect better treatment from the ACC, whose control apparatus has already driven two charter members away during the last few decades.

Delany made the right strategic move, taking Rutgers and Maryland, for the long-term. The B1G has the better money, design, and reputation than the ACC.

As sloppy, and perhaps deceptive, Maryland was to their own constituents in handling matters, the ACC should be the last conference to squeal about raiding, being a financial and political victim, and sordid backroom deals.

Last edited by sec03 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't fault the ACC or Penn State talking to each other, nor the Big Ten for potentially condoning a separation/removal. I think that's just due diligence.

The more this story unfolds, the less I'm liking this pairing between the Big Ten and Maryland. Yes, Maryland is a big school, a strong academic contributor, and a wide and diverse athletic department, as well as their obvious geographical contributions, but it's what having the Terrapins may mean to future Big Ten endeavors where I'm becoming more concerned, as well as how this switch will be viewed by other institutions if they feel they are in the same boat.

It's very obvious a few people with stroke at that school were going to make this move regardless of tact or others' input. Loh himself bragged it was his decision to make (and his alone), and Kirwin obviously backing it. To drag out this "dirty laundry" between certain ACC schools, potential Big Ten ones, and ESPN, while I will value some factual context for historical purposes and the "greater good" of transparency, it's all so desperate.

Legal fees are going to be enormous. On the Maryland side, they have the state AG's office which taxpayers will mostly pay. Still, with Maryland, there could be other legal consultation fees. The ACC will go to no end to try to maximize what they can get. It's not just the Maryland issue with them, but to make an example for anyone else in the future who tries to leave the ACC.

Wake and Pitt being cited, by Maryland, for dirty hands as ACC agents, beyond the personal contacts, is an effort to show the ACC acted in a manner to minimize discovery, at least by the public sector (in a way as the UNC Emails got revealed). While it does not directly pertain to the question whether or not Maryland violated contract terms, reasonable or not; it does suggest the ACC was not free of collusion in the same type of activity for which the ACC is accusing Maryland.

The ACC and Maryland need to get in the same dang room and hash out terms of compromise whereby Maryland pays the ACC 25 to 30 million, not 52 to 54 million, and let Maryland be gone. Lawyers are going to drag this out and milk it for as long as they can. A Commissioner and his team want to save face as does a College President and his guys. The B1G Commissioner doesn't want further repercussions either. Maryland could have a decent case on the anti-trust factor.

Legal fees are going to be enormous. On the Maryland side, they have the state AG's office which taxpayers will mostly pay. Still, with Maryland, there could be other legal consultation fees. The ACC will go to no end to try to maximize what they can get. It's not just the Maryland issue with them, but to make an example for anyone else in the future who tries to leave the ACC.

Wake and Pitt being cited, by Maryland, for dirty hands as ACC agents, beyond the personal contacts, is an effort to show the ACC acted in a manner to minimize discovery, at least by the public sector (in a way as the UNC Emails got revealed). While it does not directly pertain to the question whether or not Maryland violated contract terms, reasonable or not; it does suggest the ACC was not free of collusion in the same type of activity for which the ACC is accusing Maryland.

The ACC and Maryland need to get in the same dang room and hash out terms of compromise whereby Maryland pays the ACC 25 to 30 million, not 52 to 54 million, and let Maryland be gone. Lawyers are going to drag this out and milk it for as long as they can. A Commissioner and his team want to save face as does a College President and his guys. The B1G Commissioner doesn't want further repercussions either. Maryland could have a decent case on the anti-trust factor.

For the most part, I think UMD should only pay what they originally agreed upon: the 1.5x operational fee, or that $21-24m figure. It's not out of interest of the Big Ten...I just think the ACC has handled this as nastily as one could. From how it reads, they violated their own bylaws when enough was known about a few schools' conversations with other conferences and used headquarter-based state's legal system to really extort UMD for more money. That buyout increase...it's punitive. Looks like ketchup, smells like ketchup, tastes like it...so how isn't it? Because UMD "duped" the ACC into something lower because they were secretly leaving? The ACC's case has always rung hollow and smelled of desperation...but I guess you can do that if you file first and do so in North Carolina?

I think it would only bother me more if Maryland's move mirrored that of Nebraska and Rutgers, where there was this massive, almost unison cheer for the announcement. The "oh well, that's life" thing about Maryland's ACC problem is how shady Maryland was to its own within the structure.

To a lesser extent, Rutgers has its own issue going on with the Big East/AAC. The AAC hasn't exactly distributed that buyout money from all of those departing members. Heck, some hasn't even been collected all the way? The AAC is now withholding more money from Rutgers despite that. What good are bylaws if they won't be enforced? But, then, what was that thing where Navy's people said Rutgers lied to them about their commitment?

I think this is the reason we could see some major movement prior to the next "scheduled" round of realignment in about 2025 or so. These GORs are super restrictive, so much so that I think it coud be successfully defeated. I don't see how a school can give up its rights (worth 20+ million/year x 10 years = 200+ million) for nothing. Had the contract said they got a greatly reduced payout amount it would be harder to break, but nothing makes this a sticky issue. There's a reason people work for, or sell things for $1. Nothing is free...legally speaking.

However a single school or two aren't worth the fight. It would take one of the Big3 conferences, taking a "jewel" or two (UT/OU/ND/UNC/UVA/FSU) and another 2 (KU/TT/OSU/Duke/Clem/VPI/GT) before it would be worth challenging.

I could see the Big Ten grabbing 2-4 more soon, and lumping their case in with Marylands.

Maryland, UNC, UVA, Notre Dame, & Boston College (supported by the Big Ten) vs the ACC (now lead by FSU, Clemson, Miami, GT, and VPI who all want out too) would be interesting and possibly set precident for the PAC12 to raid the Big12 and the SEC to take the remaining "jewels" from the ACC.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I think this is the reason we could see some major movement prior to the next "scheduled" round of realignment in about 2025 or so. These GORs are super restrictive, so much so that I think it coud be successfully defeated. I don't see how a school can give up its rights (worth 20+ million/year x 10 years = 200+ million) for nothing. Had the contract said they got a greatly reduced payout amount it would be harder to break, but nothing makes this a sticky issue. There's a reason people work for, or sell things for $1. Nothing is free...legally speaking.

I don't believe anyone has gotten the GoR right other than the Big Ten, simply because it's in conjunction with other agreements that WILL put schools on the hook for their rights (media deals, BTN buy-in, shared revenue, etc.). The GoR is asynchronous to any media deal. It's a symbolic gesture of unity rather than a conditional one as the ACC and Big XII have made theirs.

I just don't know if schools really challenge their GoR unless it's one of the major programs, or a program with enough evidence to have the thing voided (a school with some good email archives), regardless of their legitimacy on the whole. Like, I imagine FSU signed the ACC's GoR with some sort of agreement or understanding about television revenue as was discussed when Barron let Swofford have one-on-one's with ACC critics. What happens if the network and media pieces don't jive with what was supposedly "promised?" And in the Big XII, just how much legitimacy does something like the "supermajority" thing have when it's applied to suspicion of wrongdoing and the liability therein?

But, you have mostly publicly funded and subsidized, tax-exempt institutions getting into agreements that just shouldn't be. Part of what keeps them together is exactly what we're seeing with the Maryland-ACC thing: the waste of tax-payer money to fight something that's basically pretty meaningless. If $22-57m makes you weak in the knees, what happens when it's tens of millions of dollars a year for the hefty remainder of a GoR? To shoot for the moon on that one and claim liability for nothing will never go over with public, no matter how right one thinks they are in the argument. Kind of like the Death Star...that thing couldn't possibly do something that destructive, could it? Do you really want to find out?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum